Last quote about EPA
All quotes about EPA
I have a couple friends there who are just depressed and unsure. It's the uncertainty more than anything else. I grew up in L.A. When I was a little kid, we'd have smog days where our lungs were just in pain. Kids these days in L.A. don't have to go through that, in part because of EPA. There's not much I could do. I just know everybody likes a cookie.
You can expect reductions in the EPA that don't line up with the president's view on things like global warming and alternative energies.
I don't see how this is going to speed up anything.
It's a bit premature to declare the sky is falling. We're in the first couple steps of a thousand-mile journey. This is not where we're going to end.
This budget helps refocus the agency on being more effective, more focused, and less costly. It is about empowering the states to be primary implementers of environmental programs on the ground, rather than insist that EPA micromanage them.
Literally and figuratively, this is a scorched earth budget that represents an all out assault on clean air, water, and land. You can't put 'America First' when you put the health of its people and its country last.
You can expect reductions in the EPA that don't line up with the president's view on things like global warming and alternative energies. You will see a reduction in subsidies, a reduction of participation in those types of programs.
Overall science funding is stable, although some missions in development will not go forward and others will see increases. We remain committed to studying our home planet and the universe, but are reshaping our focus within the resources available to us – a budget not far from where we have been in recent years, and which enables our wide ranging science work on many fronts. This budget also keeps aeronautics on stable footing allowing us to continue our forward movement in many areas, including the New Aviation Horizons initiative.
We remain committed to the next human missions to deep space, but we will not pursue the Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) with this budget. This doesn't mean, however, that the hard work of the teams already working on ARM will be lost. We will continue the solar electric propulsion efforts benefitting from those developments for future in space transportation initiatives. I have had personal involvement with this team and their progress for the past few years, and am I extremely proud of their efforts to advance this mission.
You can't drain the swamp and leave all the people in it. So I guess the first place that comes to mind will be the Environmental Protection Agency – that the President wants a smaller EPA. He thinks they overreach, and the budget reflects that.
The administration's proposed budget, will be akin to taking away the agency's bread and water.
[More cuts] won't just drastically reduce EPA enforcement, it will bring it to a halt. Not only will the staff be a shadow of its former self, the inspectors, lawyers and criminal agents who would be left would be unable to do their jobs, because these cuts would zero out the already small amount of funds used to do inspections, monitor pollution and file cases.
Literally and figuratively, this is a scorched earth budget that represents an all-out assault on clean air, water and land. You can't put 'America first' when you put the health of its people and its country last.
Slashing EPA's overall budget by more than a third means the agency cannot adequately enforce our clean air and clean water safeguards. It is basically a 'get out of jail free card' for polluters. Congress should reject this budget.
You can't drain the swamp and leave all the people in it. So, I guess the first place that comes to mind will be the Environmental Protection Agency. We're not spending money on that any more. We consider that to be a waste of your money.
The administration's proposed budget is a non-starter for our national parks, our environment, and our cultural heritage, and should be dead on arrival in Congress. Agencies like the National Park Service and EPA cannot take care of our treasured landscapes and historical landmarks with further cuts to what are already shoestring budgets.
The US EPA is already on a starvation diet, with a bare-bones budget and staffing level. The administration's proposed budget will be akin to taking away the agency's bread and water.
Immediately we reached out to the Environmental Protection Agency. Because of the scale of the problem, and the technical knowledge required, we needed their expertise.
You can expect reductions in the EPA that don't line up with the president's view on things like global warming and alternative energies. You will see a reduction in subsidies, a reduction in participation in those types of programs. The core functions of the EPA can be satisfied – beyond the core functions – can be satisfied with this budget.
Careersists’ resistance to Trump doesn’t undermine democracy. It affirms it.
There is no question, this is a hard-power budget. It is not a soft-power budget. And that was done intentionally. That's what our allies can expect. That's what our adversaries can expect. If he said it in the campaign, it's in the budget. We wanted to know what his policies were. And we turned those policies into numbers. You can't drain the swamp and leave all the people in it. The president wants a smaller EPA. He thinks they overreach and the budget reflects that. If they have a different way to accomplish that, we are more than interested in talking to them.
It's pretty unprecedented to have the head of the EPA contradicting basic scientific facts. It shouldn't just be a piece of paper or some words on a website. It's intended to protect the public from bad decision-making that's not based on real facts.
I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.
Administrator Pruitt's comments are perfectly in keeping with the scientific integrity policy. There is an ongoing scientific debate on climate change, its causes and its effect. That debate should be encouraged as the Administrator has done, not discouraged as Sierra Club is attempting to do.
The reviewers had many recommendations for strengthening the report to make it clearer for technical and non-technical audiences. But, the primary findings clearly past muster. What strikes me is the contrast between this report – what the scientists say – and the statements from EPA Administrator Pruitt.
The result of each bill will be the same–worse science at EPA and less public health protections for American citizens.
The decision-making process at the EPA is already exhaustingly transparent. [It] already painstakingly collects scientific data and other details from the studies that it relies on to make policy decisions. I know because they asked me for it.
The term doesn't even appear. It's a dramatic departure from the past, and I think it's pulling the wool over the public's eyes.
They're trying to put a positive spin on it, and for obvious reasons: You're not going to put on a piece of paper that you're not interested in pursuing sound science. They're really designed to prevent us from getting the information we need to protect public health.
Essentially, it's a mandate that EPA rules follow the Clean Air Act, instead of creating their own new programs.
All these doomsday scenarios won't come to fruition.
I suspect the president and his team are doing due diligence in this area and I'm hopeful they will request that the administrator reviews the endangerment finding. I have kids, I take them camping. I don't want them to get asthma. You can be for the environment and not be for the way the previous administration abused the regulatory process.
The president has worked diligently to fulfill his promises and I am confident he will do so. The Clean Air Act was abused by the previous administration to fit their agenda. It's up to Congress to make a decision on CO2.
It's not surprising to hear people are calling after Pruitt contradicted his own agency's science. We're seeing record-setting response rates to mobile alerts, petitions and funding appeals.
For a person who can become so petty in party politics, to launch an agenda that needs help from the other party shows a president who is under-talented. There's a heck of a lot of regulation in this country that protects industry. You can kill the EPA but if you go too far you're going to harm big business in this country. The idea that you can take a hatchet to the federal bureaucracy and always please conservatives is a myth.
Do you believe that it's been proven that CO2 is the primary control knob for climate? That's the whole point of science. You keep asking questions.
This initiative has been critical to cleaning up our Great Lakes and waterways, restoring fish and wildlife habitats, and fighting invasive species, like Asian carp. I call on President Trump to reverse course on these harmful decisions.
It shows the Trump administration doesn't hold the same American values for clean air, clean water and healthy land as the vast majority of its citizens. Our health comes before the special interests of multibillion-dollar industries.
Instead of working to protect American families, President Trump's plans put the interest of big-money special interests over people.
If Donald Trump and Scott Pruitt are serious about ending the national scandal that is EPA, they will accept nothing less than a 20 percent cut this year and make this year's cut the first step in a five-year plan to replace the organization.
If the Trump administration were to rely on facts and sound science, they would come to the same conclusion that the EPA staff and outside experts reached: The 2025 standards are achievable and in a way that will save consumers trillions in fuel costs.
EPA's clean car standards are driving unprecedented reductions in carbon pollution and saving drivers money at the pump. Strong standards have been a critical factor in the auto industry's recovery from financial distress, so it makes no sense to reverse this progress.
As a candidate, Trump made a big deal out of EPA's failure in Flint, but now he's cutting 30 percent out of lead cleanup in his proposed budget. This is an example of his empty promises to do right by the American people.
Superfund is an area that is absolutely essential. The brownfields program, as well. It's a tremendous success. I want to hear from you about those successes. I want to be able to share those with the White House. ... We need stories. We need illustrations about how important the brownfields program is to creating jobs and the environmental benefits that have been achieved. We know when it goes wrong, it goes wrong badly.
Now they are feeling very vulnerable.
Today's action will reduce burdens on businesses while we take a closer look at the need for additional information from this industry.
Through this decision to zero out funding for the EPA's environmental justice programs, the president and the administrator have sent a shameful message: the health of poor Americans is less important than that of the wealthy.
By taking this step, EPA is signaling that we take these concerns seriously and are committed to strengthening our partnership with the states.
To cut the environmental justice program at EPA is just racist. I can't describe it in any other terms than a move to leave those communities behind. I can't imagine what the justification would be, other than racism.
The Trump administration has decided fence-line communities across the country, whose residents already bear an outsized burden from pollution, are on their own to take on big polluters. Most pollution-spewing operations are within eyeshot of the backyards and kitchen windows of African American and Hispanic families, as well as those of many largely white lower-income communities.
In this budget discussion that is ongoing with Congress that is just starting, there are some concerns about some of these grant programs that EPA has been a part of historically. I want you to know that with the White House and also with Congress, I am communicating a message that the brownfields programme, the Superfund programme and the water infrastructure grants and state revolving funds are essential to protect.
We are committed to strengthening our partnership with the states. Today's action will reduce burdens on businesses while we take a closer look at the need for additional information from this industry.
This appalling decision shows how quickly Pruitt is turning the EPA into an oil industry vending machine.
Pruitt has been caught misleading the Senate about his use of personal email for state business. The public has a right to know what else Pruitt is trying to hide, and the Center for Media and Democracy will keep fighting for the whole truth to be brought into the light. Pruitt refused to answer a lot of the questions put to him. This was a question he did answer and it looks as though he may have misled the Senate about the use of his personal email.
AFPM remains very interested in the prospect of your state filing a similar waiver request highlighting the environmental harm caused by the RFS mandate which we discussed previously.
I use only my official OAG [office of the attorney general] email address and government-issued phone to conduct official business.
While this 'zero out' strategy would impact nearly every community in the United States, a close examination shows the burden of these cuts will fall hardest on the health of low-income Americans and people of color. This is environmental racism in action.
EPA has too long been characterized by regulatory overreach that disregards the positive conservation efforts of farmers and threatens their very way of life. Today's action is as much a beginning as an end, and there is much work to do to ensure that any revised rule is transparent and fair for Americas farmers and ranchers.
The EPA so-called Waters of the United States rule is one of the worst examples of federal regulation, and it has truly run amok, and is one of the rules most strongly opposed by farmers, ranchers and agricultural workers all across our land. It's prohibiting them from being allowed to do what they're supposed to be doing. It has been a disaster. With today's executive order I'm directing the EPA to take action paving the way for the elimination of this very destructive and horrible rule.
The flawed WOTUS rule has proven to be nothing more than a federal land grab, aimed at telling farmers and ranchers how to run their businesses. The Environmental Protection Agency failed to listen to farmers' and ranchers' concerns when drafting the rule and instead created widespread confusion for agriculture. Under the rule, the smallest pond or ditch could be declared a federal waterway.
The reason it won't get through Congress as it stands is that while the Democrats agree in principle that we should increase defence spending, they don't agree on how. So they're not going to agree, Democrats, to cut the Environmental Protection Agency and State Department's budget massively to fund a defense increase.
I think its justified. I think people across this country look at the EPA much like they look at the IRS. I hope to be able to change that.
By extending this comment period, we are demonstrating that we are listening to miners, owners and operators all across America and to all parties interested in this important rule.
It appears the new EPA administrator is already favoring industry over public interest with this delay.
We believe the current structure of the RFS has generally worked to drive expanded production and use of renewable fuels in the U.S. marketplace.
The Renewable Fuel Standard is broken, and changing the point of obligation only pushes these problems to a different group of entities.
Our goal is to have input to (the office) with a goal of its directing BLM to completely do away with the present thrust.
You are so sweet! Thank you again so much for your help on this! Very sweet and you'll be making 2 little boys very happy! I've been to Devon several times.
I think it is safe to say that AG Pruitt has an interest in the issue. Hopefully I haven't missed the boat too much on these questions, but I want to make sure I fully understand what Oklahoma's role will be.
We think it would be most effective for Oklahoma to file a separate waiver petition that emphasizes 'severe environmental harm,' as this argument is more credible coming from a state with primary responsibility for achieving and maintaining attainment with the NAAQS.
Rest assured that your President and this Administration value the importance of renewable fuels to America's economy and to our energy independence.
EPA has made life hard for families all across America.
Emails! Remember emails? 'We should get them out!' they said about Hillary Clinton. ... If they weren't worried about them, then why rush?
He has not been at all committed to the United States' programs on dealing with climate change let alone our international responsibilities to lead other countries to do what they need to do.
Scott Pruitt is the most thoroughly vetted nominee we've ever had to lead this agency.
The biologists, scientists, lab technicians, engineers and other civil servants who work at the EPA must be able to do their jobs without political interference or fear of retribution.
It was just a heads up to expect some executive orders, that's it.
The EPA has been doing some drastic things. They have exceeded their original mission substantially under both Republican and Democratic presidents and violated the sovereignty of the states. I think we need to start fresh.
We are doing this because these emails should be released so that people can properly vet his record before the Senate votes to confirm him.
I think Pruitt will shackle us. It's horrible. People are scared. People are depressed. People who were recently hired and have babies or just bought a house are scared they'll be laid off.
Between Scott Pruitt and the EPA workforce, you have a mutual lack-of-admiration society.
Our small businesses cannot afford to cover the costs associated with compliance, too often leading to closed doors and unemployed Americans. To better protect the environment we should abolish the EPA and downstream resources to states for more effective & efficient protection.
The GA EPD would do much better protecting the environment than a big DC bureaucracy.
Republicans rewrote the rules so that Mr. Pruitt can seize control of the EPA and throw critical clean air and water rules out.
When you have that happen, it can squeeze margins until your price increases flow through. Those are the kinds of things that we just get hung up with in the EPA and other areas, and we need to move on, because it takes a lot of uncertainty off the table around where you need to spend capex.
"I do not believe climate change is a hoax,"
It is unprecedented for the minority to delay an EPA administrator for an incoming president to this extent. The people spoke and now it is time to set up a functioning government. That includes a functioning EPA.
It is unprecedented for a minority to delay the nominee of incoming president to this extent.
For more than a month, Mr. Pruitt has not fully responded to inquiries, questions for the record, or requests for information on his record and views on clean air, clean water, and climate change.
During the campaign, President Trump pledged to dismantle the EPA. In Scott Pruitt, he found just the man to carry out his vision.
The Trump administration, and President Trump himself, have made it seem like it will be easy to wipe away environmental protections for the American people. We view this rule as one that is final, and which can be rescinded only through the full rulemaking process.
This amounts to nothing more than political theater at the expense of working on issues that we care about.
On the global warming issue, scientists at the EPA have been copying their files onto thumb drives for fear of a draconian style of leadership in the EPA. It was no accident that within the last full week of the [Obama] administration is when the EPA announced this. And because Fiat Chrysler just announced more jobs in America, it's a favorable time for them to deal with Trump's administration.
"I do not believe that climate change is a hoax,"
The U.S. will clearly change its course on climate policy. Trump has made it clear he will withdraw from the Paris Agreement. He could do it by executive order tomorrow or he could do it as part of a larger package. Whether the U.N. secretariat wants the U.S. to continue to have a seat at the table is up to them. I don't think Trump cares about that. The people who elected him would prefer not to have a seat at the table. Given the way the campaign went, I think you will see very quick executive action to expedite LNG (liquefied natural gas) terminals and pipelines.
Let's aim for half and see how it works out, and then maybe we'll want to go further. It you want to achieve significant domestic budget cuts across the government, you're going to take on appropriators by requesting big cuts. President Trump said during the campaign that he would like to abolish the EPA, or 'leave a little bit'. I think the administration is likely to start proposing cuts to the 15,000 staff, because the fact is that a huge amount of the work of the EPA is actually done by state agencies. It's not clear why so many employees are needed at the federal level.
The remainder should be cleared today. There might be a very small number left for Monday, but not likely. No projects are delayed or cut. None. Not sure how much more clear I can be.
Undoubtedly the federal government has been staffed with scientists who believe the global-warming alarmist agenda. The fact is that in modern society we have the technology to deal with environmental challenges, and that's why people live in Phoenix. Because warm is good, as long as we have air conditioning.'.
I would tell the EPA staff that, in my experience, transition teams often have zero influence. They shouldn't be taken that seriously. They're just ideologues. They don't work for and are not even known to the incoming cabinet.
Many studies have shown just how strong that level of consensus in the scientific community is that climate change is happening, it's caused by humans and the impacts will be significant. It's not junk science.
We will be prepared to brief him and his team on the work we did. We aim with our enforcement to make sure the cost of non-compliance is always much higher than the cost of complying with our laws.
We want to discourage manufacturers from simply designing to the tests.
Without a broad expectation of accountability, we know the inevitable result will be a race to the bottom -- to whatever level is the lack of EPA oversight will allow.
It gets everybody's attention.
Gag orders that freeze communications with the public and government officials go against basic notions of government transparency and accountability.
Is President Trump the only one allowed to tweet in government right now? I just keep thinking how thankful I am there isn't an emergency disaster EPA needs to respond to right now. ... It's one thing to get your ducks in a row, but to put a gag order on public servants and all agency activities, not only prevents them from doing their jobs. It puts our country at risk.
We'll take a look at what's happening so that the voice coming from the EPA is one that's going to reflect the new administration.
This decision could have damaging implications? for communities across New York state and the country, from delaying testing for lead in schools to restricting efforts to keep drinking water clean to holding up much-needed funding to revitalize toxic brownfield sites.
My guess is the web pages will be taken down, but the links and information will be available.
Vladimir Putin must be proud. The EPA, like all federal agencies, is funded by taxpayer dollars, and Americans have the right to know what's being done to protect or harm public health and the environment. Americans of all political stripes should be furious.
We're just trying to get a handle on everything and make sure what goes out reflects the priorities of the new administration.
A freeze at EPA on some other things like grants and contracts appears to have happened.
We're going to really start digging into pilot studies and performance testing ... to determine what kind of upgrades, what kind of redundancies do we need.
I'm very confident that whatever discharged water, however it's treated, will not be allowed to be discharged if it affects Silver Bow Creek.
When you think about the Berkeley pit water, whatever form that takes, it's going to have to go through this one mile. I think the community understands this mile is critical to our future and also the future of the whole watershed.
Two days after that meeting he appointed someone to the EPA who I don't think should be heading the EPA.
I do not believe climate change is a hoax. Science tells us that the climate is changing, and that human activity, in some manner, impacts that change.
While we might prefer an interpretation more consistent with what appear to us to be the most prominent goals of the Clean Water Act, so long as the agency's statutory interpretation is reasonable, what we might prefer is irrelevant.
Let me say to you: science tells us that the climate is changing, and that human activity in some manner impacts that change. The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of that impact, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing debate and dialogue, and well it should be.
Environmental regulations should not occur in an economic vacuum. We can simultaneously pursue the mutual goals of environmental protection and economic growth.
Under the leadership of AG Pruitt, this team has held bad actors accountable and protected stewardship of Oklahoma's natural resources.
I think it's become more clear that he's more of an advocate for the big energy companies and utilities than he is for the general population of Oklahoma that have to breathe the air and drink the water.
It's not just that he disbanded the unit and moved those people around. He created a whole new unit specifically to fight the EPA, among other things.
He took one of Oklahoma's biggest pollution cases on record, the poisoning of eastern Oklahoma's water system, and took that out of the court and into a study mode. It's clear he's a very hands-off person when it comes to the environment.
Our research identified a remarkably sustained pattern of contributions flowing to Scott Pruitt's political causes at the same time he was taking action to oppose clean air and clean water for Americans.
I've spent all of my years battling to protect water, and I've never had anyone say they weren't on my team. If I felt an attorney general was slighting water quality enforcement, I'd be the first one to raise that issue.
I want an attorney general – and a head of our E.P.A. – who is not averse to protecting Oklahoma's most outstanding waterways.
The president's choices deserve a lot of deference from Congress and even environmental groups. But at some point when the nominee has spent his entire career attempting to dismantle environmental protections, it becomes unacceptable. That's why Mr. Pruitt is the first E.P.A. nominee from either party that the Environmental Defense Fund has opposed in our 50-year history.
You can't force a judge to rule. Pruitt didn't sit back and wait or badger the judge for a ruling. He worked to get the states of Oklahoma and Arkansas around the table.
Pollution doesn't respect state boundaries. States have limited ability to regulate pollution from outside the state, and almost every state is downstream or downwind from other pollution.
Regulation through litigation is wrong in my view. That was not a decision my office made. It was a case we inherited.
He has advocated and stood up for the profits of business, be it the poultry companies or the energy industry and other polluters, at the expense of people who have to drink the water or breathe the air.
The industries and companies, through their corporate lawyers, are renting the state's seal in order to make it look like their self-interested arguments are being made by Scott Pruitt on behalf of a state. It is a disgrace.
Our base case is that the current violation notice is settled as a reporting violation of US$140 million, a very manageable figure for FCA. However, until the issue is settled, emissions uncertainty is likely to remain a significant overhang to the shares and break the stock's impressive recovery since Trump's election.
Once again, a major automaker has made the business decision to skirt the rules and got caught. CARB and U.S. EPA made a commitment to enhanced testing as the Volkswagen case developed, and this is a result of that collaboration.
I confirm the targets of the plan.
There are some structural changes that we are requiring so there is less ability for these types of things to happen. Markets like this don't manage or police themselves.
We don't want them to be a distraction during the confirmation hearings.
Flint and other issues really point out where there are resource limitations at the state level and why you need a federal government to support that effort and oversee it. He seemed very polite and introduced himself and we had a polite, short conversation.
There's no question that he will come in here with policies he wants to implement and changes he wants to make. These are today's technologies not yesterday's. These are the jobs of tomorrow, not of yesterday. Just because climate continues to be bandied about as a partisan issue instead of just a science issue, it's made EPA's job more difficult.
We tried to change the outreach and messaging in rural America in a number of ways, but ... has it changed the rhetoric that people hear? It hasn't. We couldn't get it, but I wish we had.
Trump can appoint people to EPA and other agencies that will ease up on regulation.
In-situ uranium recovery has been used in the United States for decades, providing valuable jobs to Wyoming and clean energy to the nation. I rarely say this about the EPA, but the agency made the right decision.
I believe that in the EPA, concerning regulations relative to refineries, you really need to roll back almost yesterday.
If you look at the EPA, which I've talked about quite a bit, there is nothing more absurd – and I've talked about this before – than this regulation concerning the obligated party, being refineries.
As we look at this, we're going to continue the sampling process and the city is still in a partnership with TCEQ and the EPA on evaluating our entire water system.
The order (to withdraw the plan) should explain that it is the administration's view that the (Clean Power Plan) is unlawful and that EPA lacks authority to enforce it. The executive order is necessary to send an immediate and strong message to States and regulated entities that the administration will not enforce the rule.
The value of high-quality science has never been more important in helping to guide decisions around our nation's fragile water resources. EPA's assessment provides the scientific foundation for local decision makers, industry, and communities that are looking to protect public health and drinking water resources and make more informed decisions about hydraulic fracturing activities.
We are glad EPA resisted oil and gas industry spin, followed the science and delivered the facts. EPA must take action to address these threats now.
The agency has walked away from nearly a thousand sources of information from ... technical reports and peer-reviewed scientific reports demonstrating that ... hydraulic fracturing does not lead to widespread, systemic impacts to drinking water resources.
We look forward to working with the new administration (of President-elect Donald Trump) to instill fact-based science back into the public policy process.
With a new administration coming in, this underscores the need for action at the federal level. Now, more than ever, states and communities must use their power to guard against these very real risks.
If fracking were a major threat to drinking water supplies, the data gathered by EPA would show it. But they don't.
We're going to work something out that's going to make people happy and proud. But that's a very tough situation. They got brought here at a very young age, they've worked here, they've gone to school here. Some were good students. Some have wonderful jobs. And they're in never-never land because they don't know what's going to happen.
I stand ready to use the full power of my office to compel their enforcement by the agency.
I do think that the new administration will have to expend substantial effort for a rule that rolls back or repeals the endangerment finding to withstand legal challenges.
None of those initiatives has succeeded at accomplishing more than minor changes at the margin.
I must have met him three or four times because at the first time, I wasn't quite sure that he'd be the perfect guy to really clean that EPA up. What you have to do here is be very tough.
The mission of the EPA and its administrator requires an absolute commitment to safeguard public health and protect our air, land, water and planet. That's the litmus test. By naming Pruitt, President-elect Trump has flunked. The American people did not vote to return to the country to the dirty old days or to turn a blind eye on dangerous climate change.
By appointing Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency, Donald Trump has made it clear that he intends to wage war on clean air and clean water. Trump has also put our climate in peril and shown he is out of step with the American people.
I am deeply grateful and honored to serve as President-elect Trump's EPA Administrator. The American people are tired of seeing billions of dollars drained from our economy due to unnecessary EPA regulations, and I intend to run this agency in a way that fosters both responsible protection of the environment and freedom for American businesses.
Respect for private property rights have allowed our nation to thrive, but with the recently finalized rule, farmers, ranchers, developers, industry and individual property owners will now be subject to the unpredictable, unsound, and often byzantine regulatory regime of the EPA.
Scott Pruitt has built his political career by trying to undermine EPA's mission of environmental protection. He is a deeply troubling choice to head the agency that protects the clean air all Americans breathe and the clean water we drink.
At a time when climate change is the great environmental threat to the entire planet, it is sad and dangerous that Mr. Trump has nominated Scott Pruitt to lead the EPA. Mr. Pruitt's record is not only that of being a climate change denier, but also someone who has worked closely with the fossil fuel industry to make this country more dependent, not less, on fossil fuels.
Environmental protection, what they do is a disgrace; every week they come out with new regulations.
For the sake of the air we breathe, the water we drink and the planet we will leave our children, the head of the EPA cannot be a stenographer for the lobbyists of polluters and Big Oil. Pruitt has brazenly used his office as a vehicle for the agenda of big polluters and climate deniers in the courts – and he could do immense damage as the administrator of the EPA.
Scott Pruitt has a record of attacking the environmental protections that EPA is charged with enforcing. He has built his political career by trying to undermine EPA's mission of environmental protection. Our country needs – and deserves – an EPA Administrator who is guided by science, who respects America's environmental laws, and who values protecting the health and safety of all Americans ahead of the lobbying agenda of special interests.
Scott Pruitt is a businessman and public servant and understands the impact regulation and legislation have in the business world. His appointment will put rational and reasonable regulation at the forefront.
EPA's sudden and controversial move to propose auto regulations eight months early -- even after Congress warned agencies about taking such steps while political appointees were packing their bags -- calls out for congressional action to pause this rulemaking until a thoughtful policy review can occur.
We suggested that they provide a definition of 'systemic,' a definition of 'widespread' and then provide quantitative data to support the conclusion. That is all a way of asking them to put that kind of scientific rigor behind a statement as broad as that.
Although EPA's technical analysis indicates that the standards could be strengthened for model years 2022-2025, proposing to leave the current standards in place provides greater certainty to the auto industry for product planning and engineering. This will enable long-term planning in the auto industry, while also benefiting consumers and the environment.
It would behoove Republicans to remember EPA was signed into law by a Republican president working with a Democratic Congress because the public wanted to protect the environment. They wanted clean air to breathe, they were tired of seeing rivers spontaneously combust and the land turned into a garbage dump.
Given the complexity of this site and potential community impacts, we must ensure that sound science is driving our decision-making.
Every single one of these things, whether it was getting rid of Paris or cutting back the EPA, we think are extremely dangerous to the security of every American. We think it is based on willful ignorance of the facts and flies in the face of the realities facing the world.
Someone who doesn't know any better would think states want EPA to get out of the way. But no matter which state you talk to, they would readily acknowledge that state and local agencies are most successful when the EPA is there to help them.
We haven't seen a decline in drilling in this country because of EPA regulations. We've seen a decline in drilling in this country because of two years of low prices.
Piling on more pesticides will just result in superweeds resistant to more pesticides.
It was not the EPA at the helm when this happened.
This is a rule we really needed to have. We're delighted to see it.
The EPA looked at what was going on in the real world.
The EPA is out of control.
How would the headline read if we sent kids home contaminated and we didn't check?
We have no data whatsoever on oil and gas activity in Osage County. We don't know how many (wells). We don't know how deep. We know nothing about them.
They confirmed on Sunday they were going to put that directive in place, and today they gave us the numbers.
We are working closely with the state of Oklahoma, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Osage Nation to evaluate available information and take appropriate next steps to protect public health and the environment.
We've never had to do anything that directly involved Osage County, but on Saturday (the EPA) were quick to respond.
We are confident that once EPA conducts these required studies, they will show that biofuels like ethanol are significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, even above the threshold reductions.
EPA, we're holding your feet to the fire. We will not let you get away with this because you have caused great damage to our people, our river, our lifeblood.
The RIN market is the quintessential example of a 'rigged' market where large gas station chains, big oil companies and large speculators are assured to make windfall profits at the expense of small and mid-sized independent refineries which have been designated the 'obligated parties' to deliver RINs. As a result, the RIN market has become 'the mother of all short squeezes'. It is not too late to fix this problem if the EPA acts quickly.
RINs continue to be an egregious tax on our business and have become our single largest operating expense, exceeding labor, maintenance and energy costs.
This is an administrative petition that we're filing to try to make the program better until Congress can step in and do what really needs to be done and that is repeal the program.
The flaws in our sampling program have created a false sense of confidence both with the utilities, and the EPA, and consumers in this country that lead in water is a problem of the past. This is a problem of the present.
Tribal communities in the affected region have been devastated and the EPA has not taken responsibility for the mess it made. I hope this investigation uncovers who is at fault and holds them responsible. We will be watching closely.
Addressing pollution from aircraft is an important element of US efforts to address climate change. Aircraft are the third largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the US transportation sector, and these emissions are expected to increase in the future. EPA has already set effective greenhouse gas standards for cars and trucks and any future aircraft engine standards will also provide important climate and public health benefits.
People should not have to choose between mobility and a healthy climate. The EPA's nine-year delay on regulating aircraft emissions failed the American people. Now it's time for the Obama administration to issue a strong rule, to hold the aviation industry accountable for its significant contributions to climate disruption, and to act immediately to curb air pollution worldwide.
As aviation is a global industry, with airlines operating internationally and aircraft manufacturers selling their aircraft in international markets, it is critical that aircraft emissions standards be set at the international level and not imposed unilaterally by one country or set of countries.
The ICAO standard would not reduce that harm identified by the endangerment finding. It's contradictory that EPA would adopt a rule that doesn't do that.
Residents can be confident that they can use filtered water and protect their developing fetus or young child from lead.
This good news shows the progress we are making with overall water quality improving in Flint.
Trader Joe's looks forward to working with the EPA in its mission to reduce air pollution and protect the ozone layer, and, with this agreement, has committed to reducing its emissions to a rate that matches the best of the industry.
The time has come for the city and the state to address those challenges. Safe drinking water cannot be reliably achieved without tackling those challenges.
We not only need new pipes, we need new infrastructure. That's money that must come from the state.
EPA will continue sharing the latest science and information so that state and local officials can make informed decisions and take actions to protect public health. This is an important part of our broader effort to support states and public water systems as we work together to strengthen the safety of America's drinking water.
It would be a major positive trigger for the stock if VW quantified the total potential cost of the diesel affair.
The takeaway overall is that the EPA doesn't collect and states don't provide the information for the EPA to exercise the oversight that's its job. It shows a massive failure to protect our drinking water.
When you break a law that protects public health, there are real victims and real consequences, as this case tragically shows. This incident illustrates how important it is for EPA to enforce environmental laws and hold anyone accountable for endangering our safety. Today's charges should send a clear message to the industry, and directs important funds toward training programs to help ensure this can't happen again.
We are fully cooperating with the U.S. authorities to make our V6 3.0L TDI engine compliant with regulations. After meetings between EPA/CARB and our technicians, we filed a recall plan within the time limit laid out in the regulations. Now the authorities will review the plan and determine whether it meets their requirements. We hope to receive a decision in the near future.
The situation is anything but being ignored by the White House.
I think there are issues at the EPA through the course of all this.
EPA did its job but clearly the outcome was not what anyone would have wanted. So we're going to work with the state, we're going to work with Flint. We're going to take care of the problem. We know Flint is a situation that never should have happened.
We've been having a large amount of technical discussions back and forth with Volkswagen. At this point, we haven't identified a satisfactory way forward, but those discussions are going to continue. We are really anxious to find a way for that company to get into compliance, and we're not there yet.
The EPA is accusing Volkswagen of essentially putting a cheat code into their engine management system for these diesel engines that would enable them to pass the emissions tests and also smog tests in states like California and other states, while emitting far more than the allowable amount of NOx during real-world driving.
"Let's be clear about this. Our company was dishonest with the EPA and the California air resources board and with all of you, and, in my German words, we have totally screwed up,"
Let's be clear about this: our company was dishonest -- with the EPA and the California Air Resources Board -- and with all of you. And in my German words: We totally screwed up. We must fix those cars.
It's fair to say that we are quite concerned by some of the reports that we have seen about the conduct of this particular company but ultimately this is the responsibility of the EPA to take a look at it and that is exactly what they are doing.
When you look at the impact, this proposal by President Obama's EPA would have a 29 billion (US) dollars per year cost on middle class families.
After the EPA announcement to get active against CO2 emissions, President Obama is now able to reduce CO2 levels in America to reach the required targets to tackle global warming. In Copenhagen, we expect President Obama to raise emission targets and with this an historic deal can be reached.